Mourdock: 2+2=5

[LightSpectra]

What's the difference between egregious and fundamental sins?

Fundamental means it describes many sins under a single reasoning. "You shall not steal", for example, includes robbery, thievery, corpse looting, defrauding one of their wage, etc.

Egregious refers to how bad the sin itself is. Armed robbery is a more serious offense than pretty thievery, for example, but both are described by the fundamental crime of "stealing".

Really? I mean I'm seeking information here.

But I'd have thought that killing was substantially worse than rape. And as blasphemy hurts no one but the blasphemer - at least principally - I'd have thought it rated very low indeed.

But maybe my values are based on what I think as harming others, so maybe I'm just theologically naive.

They're the worst in the sense that they can never be justified circumstantially. You could conceivably kill somebody with good intentions and it not be a sin (such as in self-defense or in a just war); although the death of the other person is bad, by the principle of double effect, the action itself was not sinful.

But rape and blasphemy can never be justified by the principle of double effect. They're intrinsically evil by the action itself.

 

[Farm Boy]

However, being a result of a rape is hardly news anyone would want to hear.

Curiosity's sake - why do you think this, exactly? A bit all "sins of the father," don't you think? Is that a worldview you prescribe to?

 

[Borachio]

They're the worst in the sense that they can never be justified circumstantially. You could conceivably kill somebody with good intentions and it not be a sin (such as in self-defense or in a just war); although the death of the other person is bad, by the principle of double effect, the action itself was not sinful.

But rape and blasphemy can never be justified by the principle of double effect. They're intrinsically evil by the action itself.

Yes, you have a point. I suppose you could justify killing that way. I, myself, never could.

But then following your logic, a killing that cannot be justified circumstantially - and there must surely be many - would be intrinsically evil and also worse than rape. No?

As for blasphemy - is it not a victim-less crime, in large measure? How can it warrant comparison with rape, let alone killing?

 

[Grendeldef]

Curiosity's sake - why do you think this, exactly? A bit all "sins of the father," don't you think? Is that a worldview you prescribe to?

Well, I assume that people in general prefer their dads not to be rapists. I would find it odd if someone's reaction to being told that his/her father was a rapist was 'cool, way to go Daddy'.

G

 

[Crezth]

The purpose of the Decalogue is to encompass all sins into a handful of imperatives. That's precisely why your phrasing sounds awkward; more accurately, it would be "do no evil against me or to your neighbor, which includes petty theft and murder."

Fair enough.

"Covet thy neighbor's wife" is a general blanket way to say to remain sexually chaste except with marital conjugal relations. It's not restricted to men (women can commit adultery as well) and it's not restricted to someone else's spouse. It falls under an offense against chastity.

Why is it phrased like that though, and in the same sentence as other possessions of what is presumably a man? I'm definitely not the first to ask why that particular commandment treats women like property, so presumably you have an answer for this.

Also, speaking generally: the problem with Mourdock's statement is not that it is an assertion of a pro-life position per se, nor that he presumes to know God's will (though that ought to be a problem), but that it uses an a priori assumption to block out all further discussion. But in the interests of pursuing philosophical discussion, let's focus on the religious implications. When he says rape creates life, and that life is good because it is in God's plan, he shouldn't be surprised when people ask "Is rape in God's plan, too?" It must be: the circumstances of the pregnancy are rape.

If I may be clearer, we can presume the woman would not become pregnant if she were not raped. We might assume that God has the power to impregnate her whether she is raped or not, but it doesn't seem to be his modus operandi to impregnate every female of age spontaneously. There is a system for that, of course, and it plays out in sexual intercourse. The reason it's important to outline this is that the rape-caused pregnancy is not possible without the rape. So, to "plan" for that pregnancy is to plan for the events it is contingent upon, e.g. the rape.

So, we should conclude that God is wicked - and then hardly meriting any worship at all - or apathetic - which is atrociously disrespectful of the abused woman, who had to suffer in order to play out God's plan, and if not explicitly a wicked act is practically so.

Or we say that Mourdock doesn't know His mind and is a presumptuous cock for saying he does.

 

[LightSpectra]

Yes, you have a point. I suppose you could justify killing that way. I, myself, never could.

But then following your logic, a killing that cannot be justified circumstantially - and there must surely be many - would be intrinsically evil and also worse than rape. No?

As for blasphemy - is it not a victim-less crime, in large measure? How can it warrant comparison with rape, let alone killing?

Couldn't tell you what's worse between rape and unjustified murder. If you really cared I could go research the matter, but not right now.

Since human beings were created to love God, as God loves us unconditionally, blasphemy is an especially heinous sin since it completely contradicts one's own reason for existing. It's a suicide of one's soul. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin, for the exceptional reason that it closes one's heart off for wanting contrition. (It's a somewhat misunderstood phrasing; I remember a few years ago some people who declared "I blaspheme the Holy Spirit" and told me that they can never become Christian. That's not quite how it works.)

Why is it phrased like that though, and in the same sentence as other possessions of what is presumably a man? I'm definitely not the first to ask why that particular commandment treats women like property, so presumably you have an answer for this.

Couldn't tell you. Maybe it's because ancient Hebrew (i.e. pre-Davidic Hebrew) was such a primitive language that such ideas could only be expressed in patriarchal terms, which means it has to be rendered like that to give an accurate translation. It's a lot less complicated to read in Koine Greek and Latin, I'll tell you that. The Lectionary for Mass as used by the Catholic Church in English-speaking countries universalizes the language so it's gender neutral, because it was intended that way and applies to everybody.

Also, speaking generally: the problem with Mourdock's statement is not that it is an assertion of a pro-life position per se, nor that he presumes to know God's will (though that ought to be a problem), but that it uses an a priori assumption to block out all further discussion. But in the interests of pursuing philosophical discussion, let's focus on the religious implications. When he says rape creates life, and that life is good because it is in God's plan, he shouldn't be surprised when people ask "Is rape in God's plan, too?" It must be: the circumstances of the pregnancy are rape.

This is the old problem of free will. The short answer is that God tolerates evil but is capable of deriving good from the evil. Thus rape is the result of evil-doers, but a secondary implication, i.e. pregnancy, is a good thing, since all children (regardless of the means of their conception, whether rape, cloning, or Fullmetal alchemy) are sons of God and their life should be respected.

 

[civver_764]

Since human beings were created to love God, as God loves us unconditionally, blasphemy is an especially heinous sin since it completely contradicts one's own reason for existing. It's a suicide of one's soul.

Shouldn't we have intrinsic knowledge of this fact then? How can God blame us otherwise?

 

[Farm Boy]

Well, I assume that people in general prefer their dads not to be rapists. I would find it odd if someone's reaction to being told that his/her father was a rapist was 'cool, way to go Daddy'.

G

How likely is it that a rapist is actually going to be serving as father to his biological child(I know it's possible)? Sure, I get that there are a lot of situations in life where we would prefer variables were different. I would probably prefer my father was a multi-millionaire. We don't pick from where we spawn, if we allow our self-perception of worth to be tainted by the actions of those who have come before rather than our own actions I would say that's a perception we need to work on changing.

 

[Borachio]

blasphemy is an especially heinous sin since it completely contradicts one's own reason for existing. It's a suicide of one's soul.

Ah right. I see.

Mind you, I still don't understand it. I can't quite see how it works to do that.

It all seems rather circular.

But of course I don't really know what constitutes actual blasphemy. I get it confused with heresy most of the time.

 

[Farm Boy]

But of course I don't really know what constitutes actual blasphemy. I get it confused with heresy most of the time.

Kinda depends on who you are talking to I suppose, but I think the pivotal difference is probably intent behind the statement. A heretic presumably has his heart in the right place and has the "details wrong." A blasphemer has his "heart in the wrong place" for however the hell you want to define it.

 

[LightSpectra]

Shouldn't we have intrinsic knowledge of this fact then? How can God blame us otherwise?

"You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart" (Jeremiah 29:13).

I don't know, nor am I intellectually capable of knowing, how an omnipotent just God judges people. I can only go by what has been revealed and speculate.

But of course I don't really know what constitutes actual blasphemy. I get it confused with heresy most of the time.

It's an oft confused subject. Heresy is when a baptized Catholic, who insists that he is a Catholic, teaches a significant contradiction of infallible Catholic doctrines, and continues to do so after being corrected by a legitimate authority figure. (There can also be non-Catholic heresies, but this is what we're talking about at the moment and I don't wish to over-complicate the matter.) If he was never baptized, then it's merely teaching error. If he says he is no longer Catholic, it is apostasy. It's only heresy if he attempts to use the authority of the Church to publicly teach a grave falsehood.

Blasphemy is when one wishes ill upon God Himself. This includes sacrilege and desecration.

 

[Crezth]

This is the old problem of free will. The short answer is that God tolerates evil but is capable of deriving good from the evil. Thus rape is the result of evil-doers, but a secondary implication, i.e. pregnancy, is a good thing, since all children (regardless of the means of their conception, whether rape, cloning, or Fullmetal alchemy) are sons of God and their life should be respected.

After my own heart, I see.

But, back on subject: Pregnancy as a "good thing" seems rather subjective to me. It is a "good thing" for whom, exactly? It seems to me that one entity that would deserve a good thing is the mother, and unplanned pregnancies are ever so rarely a "good thing" for a rape victim to deal with. Add on to social pressures and financial distress the psychological turmoil of carrying the child of the person who raped you, and you have a dangerous cocktail of suffering. Not only that, but you are essentially inflicting upon the woman a debilitating medical condition through no fault of her own. You could capably argue that the "good" that God derives from the rape is actually quite harmful, in some cases anyway.

 

[Grendeldef]

How likely is it that a rapist is actually going to be serving as father to his biological child(I know it's possible)?

Not likely at all but that's besides the point. He's still a rapist.

I would probably prefer my father was a multi-millionaire.

I'm sure most people would like to be a child of an multi-millionaire but not being one isn't being a child of criminal and moreover a result of a criminal act.

We don't pick from where we spawn, if we allow our self-perception of worth to be tainted by the actions of those who have come before rather than our own actions I would say that's a perception we need to work on changing.

I agree and I never said anything contradictory to this. I wasn't a worse or better person if my father was a rapist but I very much prefer the present that he isn't as I assume majority agrees with.

G

 

[LightSpectra]

"Pregnancy" is a process of nature. I don't see fit to assign moral value to it outside of the Aristotelian sense. An unplanned pregnancy, or one with medical complications, can be a burdensome thing, I agree.

But that's all separate from the fact that a conceived child in the womb has a right to life; all lives are inherently sacred since we're all creations of God. If the pregnancy could be terminated without harming the child or his development, I would advocate that. But right now that's impossible. I take it that nobody here would tell a grown woman conceived by rape that her existence is an error and she doesn't deserve to live. The only difference between that and a baby in the womb is that our culture has collectively decided to depersonalize the baby, to say he's "just a clump of cells" and "not a human being" to justify killing him. But all biological considerations tell us that an unborn baby is alive, and all philosophical considerations tell us that he's a human being. It is ethically indefensible to say that we have a right to kill the baby because it would be better for the mother.

I am not insensitive to the troubles the mother is facing. Please believe me on this. But I am also sensitive to the life of the baby, and I refuse to depersonalize him and deny him the life that rightfully belongs to him.

 

[Crezth]

Our culture depersonalizes livers, sperm, zygotes, etc. "All biological considerations" don't tell us an unborn baby is any more alive than a liver, sperm, or zygote, and "all philosophical considerations" evidently don't tell us that it's a human being as the existence of the debate should demonstrate.

The ethical defense is that the mother's rights to autonomy should not be infringed or we have decided that her human rights can be rescinded, at will, for something that is not any fault of her own. This qualifies as a depersonalization if nothing else does.

And finally, the religious position that it's "part of God's plan" is reprehensible because, as I stated before, the implication in the phrasing is that God clearly anticipated and condoned the rape and the corresponding pregnancy. If that's not an interpretation you agree with, so be it, but don't defend a presumptuous assmouth like Mourdock for running his mouth off.

 

[LightSpectra]

Our culture depersonalizes livers, sperm, zygotes, etc. "All biological considerations" don't tell us an unborn baby is any more alive than a liver, sperm, or zygote, and "all philosophical considerations" evidently don't tell us that it's a human being as the existence of the debate should demonstrate.

Abortion debates that focus on the liveliness or humanity of the fetus are always a farce; the answer is quite plain and obvious, yet it is rejected for ideological reasons.

The only discussion that has any merit is if the baby is violating the mother's rights.

And finally, the religious position that it's "part of God's plan" is reprehensible because, as I stated before, the implication in the phrasing is that God clearly anticipated and condoned the rape and the corresponding pregnancy. If that's not an interpretation you agree with, so be it, but don't defend a presumptuous assmouth like Mourdock for running his mouth off.

As I've said four times now already, that God is able to derive good (human life) from grave evil (rape) does not mean He condones the rape. That is a strawman and I'm getting tired of it. If you please, argue with me about how exactly God can tolerate evil, but do not misrepresent the position I am arguing.

 

[Grendeldef]

The only difference between that and a baby in the womb is that our culture has collectively decided to depersonalize the baby, to say he's "just a clump of cells" and "not a human being" to justify killing him.

I'd rather say that not our nor much of any else culture for that matter has collectively decided to personalise an unborn one.

G

 

[Crezth]

Abortion debates that focus on the liveliness or humanity of the fetus are always a farce; the answer is quite plain and obvious, yet it is rejected for ideological reasons.

It is asserted for ideological reasons. On top of that there's no particular biblical argument that life "begins" at conception any more than birth. And there's no biological argument that arranges an embryo is a "unique" life when it chimerizes and splits furtively.

A pure biological standpoint, in fact, holds that life began billions of years ago and is a continuous process - and defining the beginning of "a life" is meaningless without circumstantial qualifiers. A consciousness, perhaps? A person? You tell me.

The only discussion that has any merit is if the baby is violating the mother's rights.

This pathway isn't actually terribly relevant to the argument at hand so I'll let that sleeping dog lie.

As I've said four times now already, that God is able to derive good (human life) from grave evil (rape) does not mean He condones the rape. That is a strawman and I'm getting tired of it. If you please, argue with me about how exactly God can tolerate evil, but do not misrepresent the position I am arguing.

Then it is a bizarre usage of the word "plan" that does not seem consistent with any usage I've ever seen.

 

[Farm Boy]

I agree and I never said anything contradictory to this. I wasn't a worse or better person if my father was a rapist but I very much prefer the present that he isn't as I assume majority agrees with.

I'm not fault finding with you, I understand and agree that what you are saying is true. I would argue that the fact that the "majority agrees with" this is exactly what we should try rather hard to change. A majority of people in the early 1800s would have very much preferred that their father wasn't black. This very well could be for good-intended reasons in people that weren't racist. They simply held that preference for good founded reasons. Hopefully, we've made progress in that regard. Hopefully, we can make progress in this regard too. It probably will require active nit-picking on opinions such as I am attempting to engage in now.

 

[Grendeldef]

I'm not fault finding with you, I understand and agree that what you are saying is true. I would argue that the fact that the "majority agrees with" this is exactly what we should try rather hard to change. A majority of people in the early 1800s would have very much preferred that their father wasn't black. This very well could be for good-intended reasons in people that weren't racist. They simply held that preference for good founded reasons. Hopefully, we've made progress in that regard. Hopefully, we can make progress in this regard too. It probably will require active nit-picking on opinions such as I am attempting to engage in now.

Yup, with this I agree.

G